As recently as six months ago, I barely consumed any internet video, with the exception of tech talks on Google Video. What a difference six months makes. Today I watch at least some video every day, usually news sites like Beet.tv or some form of science/technology discussion (most of which I capture via Splashcast). But the most fascinating aspect of online video are the business models that various companies have adopted. An example is Brightcove, which seems to have figured out how to differentiate itself from YouTube by becoming a delivery platform for quality, customized content built on top of a slick player.

But this post is not about YouTube or Brightcove, but rather about live video, inspired by a Marshall Kirkpatrick post on Chris Pirillo’s live stream. Live video is fast becoming big business. The success of Justin.tv, Chris Pirillo and other efforts only serves to re-emphasize our thirst for instant gratification and the inner voyeur inside us all. Of course, in Chris’ case, he also offers some cool insight, but instead of typing those out in a blog, he just talks to you about his thoughts on camera.

The question remains though; can live video sustain itself? Techcrunch recently profiled a number of services that enable live video, so there is no shortage of options that will make it easier for live video delivery and consumption (Also check out Operator 11, which is really well done). Right now, it’s the techies, kids and pornographers who are at the forefront, but when camera loving celebs realize that they can be on TV without the pararazzi, and content producers realize that they have a viable medium to deliver real time material, live video is really going to take off. However, there are some big barriers, tops among them being bandwidth, a second being time, and a third being quality. The quality of live streaming video is just not there yet, while a lack of people with suitable broadband access limits wider adoption. The quality expectations for recorded video are increasing rapidly, and while we will forgive live video some issues, but not to the a degree that it ruins the user experience. As it stands now, some of the issues with streaming video make it difficult to watch all programs and channels.

In the end though, it all boils down to content. Given sufficient quality, access to historical media, and engaging content, the people will come and so will the ad revenue. Ex There was also a nice discussion on net@nite 26, and one of the points that was made was that 24/7 video can become tedious, and will require themes. As someone unlikely to watch 24/7 video, but likely to join in a few hours a week for specific content, I can’t agree more. Examples of content include the video equivalent of talk radio, real time news, reality shows, and others that are beyond my creative mind.

The medium of live video, which used to exist as the plaything of webcam owning teens is finally growing up. The chances are that within the next two years or so, Google is going to make a live video acquisition, perhaps even faster, since video is getting so ubiquitous. Another big driver could be Facebook, as people put live streams onto Facebook. In this context, Scoble has an interesting post on Kyte.tv, although he incorrectly limits “live” to Justin.tv-style streaming. Interesting times are here. We are watching the nature and delivery of media changing right before our eyes. Reminds me of the time when color television first came to India back in the early 80’s and then cable a decade later.

Further reading:
Marshall Kirkpatrick